Bitch Media - eugenicshttp://bitchmagazine.org/taxonomy/term/10282/0
enNo Kidding: Fit to be Tied? Talking with Dr. Rebecca Kluchinhttp://bitchmagazine.org/post/no-kidding-fit-to-be-tied-talking-with-dr-rebecca-kluchin
<p><img src="/sites/default/files/u830/fittobetied.jpg" width="141" height="203" alt="fittobetied.jpg" align="left" hspace="10" />Does the history of sterilization have links to modern consent forms? How has forced sterilization intersected, if at all, with the fight for women's right to be voluntarily sterilized? Since I have a lot of questions about these sorts of things, I figured I'd ask someone who knows.</p>
<p>Rebecca M. Kluchin, Ph.D., an assistant professor in the department of history at California State University, Sacramento, and author of the book <i><a href="http://tinyurl.com/6xh8l5b" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Fit to be Tied: Sterilization and Reproductive Rights in America, 1950-1980</a></i>, was kind enough to answer some questions via email about the history of forced sterilization, the stigma of voluntary sterilization for childfree people, and how the struggles for and against sterilization have differed.</p>
<p><b>How have twentieth century compulsory sterilization programs altered the dialogue around women's fertility options?</b></p>
<p>Forced sterilization in the 1960s and 1970s shaped family planning policies in that era, especially around issues of informed consent. This is probably the way in which it most shaped contemporary conversations about reproductive choices and reproductive practices. For example, federal sterilization guidelines established in 1978 spell out clear requirements for informed consent and cover things like how an interpreter must be present in instances in which English is not a woman's first language, and the consent form must appear in the language of origin and must clearly state that there are no consequences to not accepting the surgery. These are things that we take for granted now, but the experiences of victims of forced sterilization played a role in shaping these policies. Before they were established many women were forced to "consent" to surgery while in labor and under duress and/or the influence of pain medication. Some were not consulted about their sterilization; doctors sterilized them without their knowledge while they were undergoing abdominal surgery. Others were told to sign a form after they were sterilized and still others signed consent forms thinking that their tubes could be untied easily. In this way, forced sterilization has contributed to the development of contemporary informed consent policies, although follow-up studies of federally funded sterilizations that were undertaken in the 1908s reveal that some physicians continue to ignore federal standards for informed consent when sterilizing poor women, especially women of color.</p>
<p><b>How do you think the history of forced sterilization in the United States has affected the availability of permanent birth control?</b></p>
<p>In many ways, the history of voluntary and forced sterilization ran independent courses until the mid to late 1970s when they intersected during public debates about sterilization policy. Women seeking access to voluntary sterilization were predominately white but ranged from poor to middle class. When they were denied access to the surgery because of pronatalist hospital policies like the <a href="http://womenshealthnews.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/the-120-rule-of-sterilization/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">120 rule</a>, some filed suit and asked the courts to extend the recent right to abortion and birth control to sterilization. They were generally successful. Some victims of forced sterilization also filed suit, but with one exception, lost their claims.</p>
<p>In the 1970s, feminists advocating for sterilization on demand came into conflict with feminists and community activists seeking to protect poor women, especially women of color, from forced sterilization. The former wanted all barriers to surgery removed, in part because they feared that mandatory waiting periods and age minimums could be applied to abortion and used by anti-abortion policymakers to restrict women's access to the more controversial surgery. The latter feared that without such barriers, sterilization abuse would continue and advocated for federal and state regulation of voluntary sterilization as a means of protecting those vulnerable to abuse. Although both groups supported women's right to reproductive self-determination, they could not agree on how to achieve this in a way that protected the reproductive rights of all women. Protective mechanisms like age minimums and waiting periods inferred with women's right to sterilization on demand; their absence, however, allowed sterilization abuse to go unchecked as many women of color were being sterilized during childbirth, while under duress and often the influence of pain medication. Waiting periods prevented this common form of abuse from occurring. Federal guidelines were established in the 1978 and although they did not completely eradicate sterilization abuse, they did contribute to its decline. That said, concerns that protective mechanisms would restrict access to voluntary sterilization were not realized because the protections applied only to federally funded surgeries and were not extended to private pay patients.</p>
<p>Forced sterilization shaped the development of policies like the described above, but by and large, did not affect women's access to voluntary sterilization once the courts ruled that sterilization should be treated like birth control and policies like the 120 rule were rescinded. I think much of this is because the women seeking sterilization and women seeking to be protected from forced sterilization were of different races, classes, and ethnicities. In addition, while the history of forced sterilization is known in the academy and to some extent in the medical and family planning professions, it's not well known among the general public and thus doesn't really shape many contemporary women's views of sterilization.</p>
<p><b>What sort of stigma do you think voluntary sterilization carries, if any?</b></p>
<p>I don't believe there is much of a stigma for women and men who have had children, but I think one exists for those who choose to be childless and undergo sterilization to ensure they remain so. This is especially true for younger people, those under thirty, who have difficulty obtaining their desired surgery not because of policy barriers, but because of physicians' hesitation to sterilize them. Often physicians tell these patients to come back in a few years when they are "sure" about their decision. Federal guidelines established in 1978 require women and men sterilized with federal funds to be over twenty-one, but these rules don't apply to private patients and in my opinion, don't have any influence over the conversations between the childless in their twenties and physicians who refuse to sterilize them. I think physicians' hesitation reflects their concern about malpractice suits, but perhaps more importantly, reflects our society's continuing discomfort with decisions to remain childless as well as medical paternalism, which undermines women's reproductive decision-making.</p>
<p><i>For more with Dr. Kluchin, check out her <a href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/08/05/demanding-right-reproduce-voluntary-and-forced-sterilization-america" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">interview with former Bitch blogger Mandy Van Deven's over at RH Reality Check</a>.</i></p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/no-kidding-fit-to-be-tied-talking-with-dr-rebecca-kluchin#commentschildfreeeugenicsFit to be Tiedforced sterilizationNo KiddingRebecca Kluchinvoluntary sterilizationSocial CommentaryWed, 23 Feb 2011 21:11:23 +0000Brittany Shoot9202 at http://bitchmagazine.orgNo Kidding: Putting Voluntary Sterilization in a Historical Contexthttp://bitchmagazine.org/post/no-kidding-putting-voluntary-sterilization-in-historical-context
<p>If we're going to talk about voluntary sterilization—or even the simple act of opting to have few or no children—we've got to get everyone on the same historical page. While I tend to take for granted that people understand the history of forced sterilization in the U.S., as well as countries such as China that mandate single-child families as part of population control, it may not be a given that everyone understands the connections between modern eugenics, race/class/ability privilege, reproductive justice, and the struggle for voluntary sterilization. Much as I know loads of folks use it as a jumping off point, skimming the Wikipedia entries for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization" target="_blank">compulsory sterilization</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States" target="_blank">eugenics in the United States</a> only gets you so far. Please keep in mind, however, that I'm neither a historian nor a legal scholar.</p>
<p>Not wanting to have children and seeking to medically opt out can be a decision fraught with complications, if for no other reason than the complex history associated with forced sterilization of women of color, native and indigenous women, low-income women, people with disabilities, LGBTQ/GNC folks, immigrants, and seemingly anyone who might be randomly determined to be deviant or some sort of societal burden. Compulsory sterilization hasn't been only carried as a form of eugenics, either. It's long been a punitive "solution," a way to punish criminals, though that distinction tends to overlap with the type of people persecuted as so-called criminals in the first place.</p>
<p><img src="/sites/default/files/u830/eugenicsposter.jpg" width="375" height="500" alt="eugenicsposter.jpg" /></p>
<p><i>The poster, roughly translated from German, reads "popular breeds = customer."</i></p>
<p>This wasn't just a WWII Nazi-era phenomenon. The United States was the first country to use compulsory sterilization for eugenics purposes, and well into the mid-twentieth century, laws remained on the books in several dozen states that allowed for the forced sterilization of select groups of people, notably people with mental illness. It took until the Supreme Court case, <a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1941/1941_782/" target="_blank"><i>Skinner v. Oklahoma</i> in 1942</a>, before it was deemed illegal to sterilize a person as punishment for a crime. Even after WWII helped shift stateside public opinion and after the official end of the U.S. eugenics movement, there have been reports of cases of coerced sterilization, and even sterilization campaigns enacted against women without any consent whatsoever.</p>
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EXIQifruK08?version=3" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EXIQifruK08?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object><p>
It doesn't take long to realize that today, the seemingly simple solution of permanent birth control is anything but. These (somewhat campy) films, made with public domain footage, explore how women have long made reproductive choices based on coercion, fear, poverty, and lack of social support.</p>
<p><iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/y3B-GUEvc-c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p><iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XDIQi0iws7Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p>Today, some woman <i>can</i> be voluntarily sterilized; I'm one of them. But in order to begin talking about why voluntary sterilization should be part of the larger conversation about privilege, gender, and reproductive justice, we all need to situate ourselves in history, think over where we've been and where we hope to be someday.</p>
<p>The question is—or rather, the questions are—how can we make voluntary sterilization part of our discussion about reproductive justice while honoring the despicable history of forced sterilization? How can we advocate for women's reproductive freedoms while being respectful of the ways women's bodies have been used and violated in the past? How can we support women's rights to choose parenthood and equally support women who wish to opt out in whatever way they see fit?</p>
<p><b>Further reading:</b></p>
<p><a href="http://mississippiappendectomy.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">mississippi appendectomy</a></p>
<p><i><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=vliVy1cCFDkC" target="_blank">Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom</a></i> by Wendy Kline</p>
<p><i><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=IJJVYrnImOsC" target="_blank">The Black Stork: Eugenics and the Death of "Defective" Babies in American Medicine and Motion Pictures Since 1915</a></i> by Martin Pernick</p>
<p><i><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Mii5AAAAIAAJ&amp;q=women,+race,+and+class&amp;dq=women,+race,+and+class&amp;hl=en&amp;src=bmrr&amp;ei=JApkTf-6EIa2sAOk0ZHdCA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA">Women, Race and Class</a></i> by Angela Y. Davis</p>
<p><i>Photo via <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/75001512@N00/3241694443/" target="_blank">Joelk75 on Flickr</a></i></p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/no-kidding-putting-voluntary-sterilization-in-historical-context#commentschildfreedisabilityeugenicsforced sterilizationindigenous womenmental healthNative AmericansNo Kiddingreproductive justicereproductive rightsvoluntary sterilizationwomen of colorSocial CommentaryTue, 22 Feb 2011 19:00:33 +0000Brittany Shoot9191 at http://bitchmagazine.org